‘CBSE can't have records at odds with passport'
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) cannot retain records that contradict a person's passport, warning that such discrepancies could create confusion regarding an individual's identity in matters of employment or immigration.
'A citizen of the country is entitled to a true and correct narration of all necessary and relevant particulars in the public documents that pertain to them,' a division bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed in its judgment on June 4.
The court noted that both the matriculation certificate and passport are regarded as 'an unassailable and valid proof of date of birth,' and reiterated that CBSE, as a record-keeper, holds a position of significant public importance. The ruling came while hearing an appeal filed by CBSE challenging a single judge's decision that allowed a correction of the date of birth in the case of one Prema Evelyn D Cruz. She had sought an amendment in her All India Secondary School Examination certificate based on her official birth certificate issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation.
CBSE argued the request was barred by limitation under its Bye-laws and Weeding Out Rules, 1998, as documents older than ten years may be destroyed. It also claimed relevant records were unavailable.
However, Cruz contended that procedural constraints or document destruction should not prevent CBSE from correcting errors based on valid public documents. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the High Court noted that official birth certificates carry a statutory presumption of correctness and found 'no cogent reason' for CBSE to disregard hers.
'If the CBSE record is at variance with the Passport, it could lead to considerable doubt... for employment, immigration or any other purpose,' the Bench observed, upholding the single judge's ruling and dismissing CBSE's appeal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Karnataka HC directs release of four accused persons in connection with Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday ordered the release of four individuals associated with the Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) victory celebration event who were arrested following the stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4. The tragic incident claimed 11 lives and injured over 50 people. The four people released are Nikhil Sosale, Marketing and Revenue Head of Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCSPL); Sunil Mathew, Director of DNA Networks Private Limited; Kiran Kumar S, Event Manager at DNA Networks; and Shamant N P Mavinakere, a freelancer linked with DNA. Justice S R Krishna Kumar passed the order while hearing their bail petitions. However, the court directed the accused to surrender their passports. A detailed order is yet to be released. The arrests, made on June 6, have drawn criticism from various quarters, and the court's decision is being seen as a setback to the Bengaluru city police and the state government. Public anger has been high over the handling of the stampede, which happened during celebrations of RCB's performance in the IPL. Lawyers representing the arrested argued that the arrests were politically motivated and carried out on the instructions of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. They also claimed that no proper investigation was conducted and no evidence was presented before arresting the petitioners. On the other hand, the state government told the court that all legal procedures were followed. It said the accused were informed of the reasons for their arrest as required under Supreme Court guidelines. Karnataka govt submits sealed response in suo motu case Meanwhile, in a related case, the Karnataka government submitted a sealed report to the High Court in response to a suo motu public interest litigation concerning the stampede. Advocate General K Shashikiran Shetty submitted the sealed cover before a bench led by Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi. The report was in response to nine questions the court had asked the government regarding the incident. The court also directed the state to preserve all original communications between government departments and stakeholders. These records must be kept in the custody of the chief secretary.
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Premature release of prisoners: Delhi HC suggests reconstitution of Sentence Review Board, fine-tuning 2004 policy
Hearing a murder convict's plea for premature release, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday referenced the reformatory policy of remission in Kautilya's Arthashastra and suggested that 'the competent authority' deliberate upon the composition of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) and reconstitute the same. It also suggested fine-tuning Delhi's 2004 sentence review policy. Justice Girish Kathpalia was dealing with a plea by a convict, who was serving life imprisonment for murder committed in 2001. He was seeking premature release after spending more than 21 years in prison with remission. The convict's case for premature release had been rejected by the SRB five times between 2020 and 2023, compelling him to then seek a direction from the Delhi High Court. On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court directed the SRB to consider his case afresh. It further directed the SRB, that in case it does not find it to be a fit case to grant premature release to the convict, 'the decision of SRB shall be worded in a manner that one can decipher as to what worked in the mind of SRB'. Holding that the SRB's decision of denial of premature release to the convict 'suffers from vices of non-application of mind and completely mechanical approach to such a sensitive issue', Justice Kathpalia noted, 'The composition of the SRB would make this court assume that each matter is discussed threadbare in such meetings. But unfortunately, the manner in which minutes of these meetings were worded, the allegation of non-application of mind cannot be brushed aside.' 'Every instrumentality of the State, be it judicial or administrative, while deciding an issue must author the decision in such manner that deciphers what worked in the mind of the authority concerned. The court must have material before it to examine as to whether there was proper application of mind or not. In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest proper application of mind by the SRB,' he added. Placing faith in the convict's reformation, the court observed, 'I have no doubt that the petitioner stands substantially reformed and can become a useful member of the society. Keeping the petitioner in jail for further period would not yield any fruitful result towards his reformation or to the society at large.' Making a case for applying the reformatory tool of premature release or remission, the court recorded, 'Not that due to passage of time, the inherent perversity of the crime per se diminishes in any manner. But for the purposes of reformative sentencing, such long incarceration, as already suffered by the petitioner, the perversity must be visualised as faded. The wound suffered by the kith and kin of the deceased, which was fresh in the year 2001, would have by now reduced to scab.' 'Time heals all wounds. This is the only way to fathom in order to ensure purposive application of the reformatory tool of premature release, otherwise no convict would be ever granted an opportunity to reform himself. For, life imprisonment, by its very nature is awarded in gruesome offences where the appropriate punishment is a bit short of awarding capital sentence. A punishment, to be scientific has to have an end somewhere during lifetime of the convict,' Justice Kathpalia said. While the state had opposed the convict's plea, referring to his misconduct in 2015 when he had jumped parole and his re-arrest in two more criminal cases, the court did not concur with the state's view. '…citing this misconduct, the SRB has repeatedly denied premature release to the petitioner. Some point of time has to be there, when aftereffects of such misconduct must taper down. It has been more than a decade since the petitioner jumped parole and got involved in those two cases. After the year 2015, there is not even a whiff of any allegation of any jail misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Rather, as observed hereafter, subsequently the petitioner was awarded a number of commendations by the jail authorities. Most significantly, as discussed above, the petitioner stands acquitted in those two cases,' the court reasoned. The convict was issued six commendation certificates while in jail, which included appreciation for his work and performance on Republic Days, and his work in assisting jail administration in fighting COVID-19. Taking the commendation certificates into account, the court noted, '…the petitioner had done an extraordinary job in the jail in fight against Corona, due to which the jail administration succeeded in keeping Corona free the jail no.2, even while admitting and quarantining more than 8,200 newly admitted prisoners. These certificates, coupled with the fact that across a period of time, the petitioner was released on parole and furlough more than once show a substantial reformative growth of the petitioner, which is a vital indicator of reduced propensity to commit crime again.' 'As regards possibility of the petitioner committing crime again, merely because he has not physically attained old age, it cannot be said that there are higher chances of his committing crime again. Bodily strength has no
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
5 hours ago
- First Post
How Allahabad High Court's verdict against Indira Gandhi 50 years ago resulted in Emergency
On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court declared then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Lok Sabha election from Rae Bareli void, sparking a domino effect that led to the imposition of Emergency. Here's how it all happened read more It has been 50 years since a High Court's judgement against India's prime minister changed the country's trajectory. On June 12, 1975, the Allahabad High Court declared then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's Lok Sabha election void, sparking a domino effect that led to the imposition of Emergency a few days later. The verdict caused a political storm and had ramifications for the entire country. But why was Indira Gandhi's election set aside? We take a relook. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Petition against Indira Gandhi In the 1971 Lok Sabha polls, Indira Gandhi, who had floated the Congress (R) — the breakaway faction of the Congress — after being expelled from the parent party in 1969, defeated her opponent Raj Narain by 1,10,000 votes from the Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh. Her party also registered a landslide victory in the elections, winning 352 out of the 518 Lok Sabha seats. Raj Narain, the Samyukta Socialist Party candidate, however, challenged Gandhi's election from Rae Bareli on April 24, 1971. He approached the Allahabad High Court alleging electoral malpractices and misuse of government machinery by the then Prime Minister. Giving no weightage to the petition, people did not anticipate what would come next. The petition was first listed before Justice William Broome, the last British judge of the Allahabad High Court. However, he retired in December 1971 and the petition reached two different benches — one of Justice BN Lokur and of Justice KN Srivastava. Due to their retirements, the petition went before the bench of Justice Jagmohan Lal Sinha in early 1975. The verdict that changed India The recording of oral evidence began on February 12, 1975. Several big names appeared as witnesses — PN Haksar, then vice chairman of the Planning Commission, appeared for Gandhi. While LK Advani, the then president of the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, former Bihar Chief Minister Karpoori Thakur and Congress-O president S Nijalingappa deposed for Raj Narain. The Prime Minister was also cross-examined for two straight days — a first in the history of independent India. As Gandhi appeared before the court on March 18, 1975, she was given a chair on an elevated platform so she was sitting on the same level as the judge, as per the Indian Express report. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Then-PM Indira Gandhi was cross-examined for two days at the Allahabad High Court. After the arguments concluded, the High Court shut down for summer vacations on May 23, 1975. Now, it was time to wait for Justice Sinha's verdict. Under immense pressure, he is said to have locked himself up at home, with visitors being told that he is in Ujjain to see his elder brother. Justice Vipin Sinha, Justice Sinha's son, recalled the pressure on his family at the time. 'I was in Class 11 then and those days were very hard for us. We got a lot of very abusive calls, so much so that we did not allow our father to answer the phone,' he was quoted as saying by Indian Express. Then came the judgement day. Announcing his ruling on June 12, 1975, in Courtroom No 24 of the Allahabad High Court, Justice Sinha said, 'This petition is allowed and the election of Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, Respondent No. 1, to the Lok Sabha is declared void… (Indira Gandhi) accordingly stands disqualified for a period of six years from the date of this order.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Justice Sinha found Gandhi guilty on two counts — for using a gazetted officer, her personal secretary Yashpal Kapoor, as her election agent, and for employing Uttar Pradesh government officers to arrange rostrums, loudspeakers and barricades for her election speeches. The court ruled in her favour on other charges –– for using choppers of the Indian Air Force to go to Rae Bareli for her election campaigning and file nominations, invoking religion to influence electors and distributing quilts, blankets, dhotis and liquor to get votes, and so on. Justice Sinha's final 258-page ruling meant immediate disqualification for Indira Gandhi as an MP and her dismissal as Prime Minister. However, after her lawyers argued that her removal would create a political vacuum in the country, the court granted a 20-day stay on the verdict. Meanwhile, Gandhi moved the Supreme Court on appeal. The case was heard by a single-judge vacation bench of Justice VR Krishna Iyer. On June 24, 1975, the apex court granted a 'conditional stay' against the Allahabad High Court ruling. While Indira Gandhi could continue as PM, her rights as an MP were restricted. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD She could not vote in Parliament, take part in proceedings of the House, or get a salary as an MP until the SC finally decides the appeal. Indira Gandhi imposes Emergency Days after the HC's ruling, Indira Gandhi invoked Article 352 of the Constitution to impose an internal Emergency . This period lasted for 21 months, during which people's fundamental rights were suppressed and dissent curbed across the country. The media were gagged and opposition leaders jailed. Seen as the Constitution's darkest chapter, the Emergency was a real test for the Indian democracy. With inputs from agencies
